Clean Coal Technology

This article is part of the CoalSwarm coverage of "clean coal."
Sub-articles:
Carbon Capture and Storage Carbon Capture and Storage projects which have been abandoned Clean Coal Clean Coal Marketing Campaign Clean Coal Technology Clean coal - quotable quotes
Related articles:
America's Power America's Power Army Americans for Balanced Energy Choices American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity FutureGen U.S. coal politics

{{#badges: CoalSwarm}} As described in the article Clean coal, the meaning of the term "clean coal" has evolved over time, with two main current uses:

• Incrementally cleaner coal: One usage generally refers to efforts to reduce the amount of air pollution created by coal-based power generation. As used in government programs, the term typically refers to measures to reduce air pollution through practices such as chemical processes for washing coal of minerals or impurities, smokestack scrubbers, or coal gasification. It should be noted that most such processes create new waste pollution streams.

• Futuristic promises of "zero-emissions coal": The other usage of the term is typically found in coal industry advertising and messaging, where a future in which coal can be used without environmental damage is implied, often indirectly rather than explicitly.

When used to describe currently available practices that reduce air pollution the name is attributed to coal chemically washed of minerals and impurities, sometimes gasified, burned and the resulting flue gases treated with steam, with the purpose of removing sulfur dioxide, and reburned so as to make the carbon dioxide in the flue gas economically recoverable. The coal industry uses the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed "to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation, and use", with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

The burning of coal has been shown to be one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups believe the claim is misleading and inaccurate. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another. The 2007 Australian of the Year, paleontologist and environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that "Coal can't be clean".

There are no coal-fired power plants in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, making the process still theoretical and experimental and a subject of feasibility studies. It is has been estimated that it will be at least fifteen to twenty years before any commercial-scale clean coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) are commercially viable and widely adopted. This time frame is of concern to environmentalists because of the belief that there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to protect the world economy. Even when CO₂ emissions can be caught, there is considerable debate over the necessary carbon capture and storage that must follow.

Byproducts

The byproducts of coal combustion are very hazardous to the environment if not properly contained. This is seen to be the technology's largest challenge, both from the practical and public relations perspectives.

While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and radionuclides will be more difficult to address. Technologies do exist to capture and store CO₂, but they have not been made available on a large-scale commercial basis due to the high economic costs.

Potential cost of carbon capture and storage

A 2007 assessment by Standard & Poor's estimated the cost of building an IGCC plant without carbon capture and storage to be $2,795 per kW for eastern coal and $2,925 per kW for Powder River Basin Coal. A comparable system that captures carbon was estimated at an additional $450 per kW."

Capturing and compressing CO₂ requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances.

Costs of energy with and without CCS (US cents per kWh)

	Pulverized coal	Integrated gasification combined cycle	Concentrated solar power
Without capture	5.8	6.5 - 6.8	7 - 11
With capture and storage	12.0	10.1 - 10.2	7 - 11
All figures are from "Which Power Generation Technologies Will Take the Lead in Response to Carbon Controls?" S&P Viewpoint, May 11, 2007, cited in "The War on Coal: Think Outside the Pits," Khosla Ventures white paper.

The cost of CCS depends on the cost of capture and storage which vary according to the method used. Geological storage in saline formations or depleted oil or gas fields typically cost US$0.50–8.00 per tonne of CO₂ injected, plus an additional US$0.10–0.30 for monitoring costs. However, when storage is combined with enhanced oil recovery to extract extra oil from an oil field, the storage could yield net benefits of US$10–16 per tonne of CO₂ injected (based on 2003 oil prices). However, as the table above shows, the benefits do not outweigh the extra costs of capture.

U.S. Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)

According to the U.S. Department of Energy:

"The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a 10-year, $2 billion program designed to support the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap milestones with the government providing up to 50 percent of the cost of demonstrating a range of promising technologies. CCPI is implemented through a series of five solicitations over the 10-year period, two of which have already been issued and selections made. CCPI provides the means to demonstrate those technologies proven through R&D to have commercial potential. Demonstrations are at a commercial scale in actual operating environments, which is essential to moving them to the threshold of commercialization."

As of April, 2008, 8 projects were active and 4 had been withdrawn.

According Department of Energy Fact Sheet, the multi-year Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), "is driven by private-sector-proposed projects in response to a government solicitation. Potential applicants include technology developers, service corporations, R&D firms, energy producers, software developers, academia, and other interested parties. The private sector cost share must be at least 50 percent. Funding is awarded to applicants, selected as a result of these open competitions, who can rapidly move promising new concepts to a point where private-sector decisions on deployment can be made."

Round I participants:

• Great River Energy, Underwood, ND - Increasing Power Plant Efficiency–Lignite Fuel Enhancement
• NeuCo, Inc., Boston, MA - Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex
• University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY - Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant
• WMPI PTY., LLC, Gilberton, PA - Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project
• Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC, Lewisburg, WV - Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project
• Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Milwaukee, WI - TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers

Round II participants:

• Excelsior Energy, Inc., Minnetonka, MN - Mesaba Energy Project
• Pegasus Technologies, Incorporated, Chardon, OH - Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control
• Southern Company Services, Birmingham, AL - Demonstration of a 285-MW Coal-Based Transport Gasifier

Schwarzenegger clause

In October 2008, the European Parliament's Environment Committee voted to support a limit on CO₂ emissions for all new coal plants built in the EU after 2015. The so-called "Schwarzenegger clause" applies to all plants with a capacity over 300MW, and limits their annual CO₂ emissions to a maximum of 500 grammes per kilowatt hour. The new emissions standard essentially rules out traditional coal plant technologies and mandates the use of Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. The Committee also adopted an amendment to support the financing of 12 large-scale commercial CCS demonstration projects, at a cost that could exceed €10 billion.

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

• Carbon Capture and Storage
• Clean Coal
• Clean Coal Marketing Campaign
• Global warming

External links

• IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Carbon Sequestration News, recent news articles on CO₂ capture and storage.
• "A last chance for coal: Making carbon capture and storage work," Green Alliance (supported by BP), August 10, 2008.

Wikipedia also has an article on Clean Coal Technology. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.